I guess he must have a few good points (two or three points, I don't agree with everything). However, I think he's pushing it too far. Saying that Queen fans have no knowledge or bad knowledge of rock'n'roll: as if Queen was one of the worst band ever. He's entitled to his opinion and so are we. Art and music are subjective, therefore, you cannot make any hierarchy. Depending on one's story and tastes, an artist / a band my sound more appealing than another one. So instead of saying Queen is not a very good band, he should say he doesn't like it and not offend anyone (it's always more disppointing for a fan to hear "your band is crap" than "I just don't like it") Anyway, as I said, he has the right to have his own opinion on Queen and has the right to write it as much as we Queen-fans.

I decided to limit myself to reading the review for "Hot Space". He calls Freddie (not a direct quote) "a Michael Jackson imitator". What he conveniently omits is that "Hot Space" predates "Thriller" by a good six months! A subjective review if I ever read one and rather boring. Ignore.

"Regardless of how I feel towards the actual songs, Hot Space demands extra respect from me. Where so many Seventies' bands never really managed to survive the New Decade Crisis, falling apart either directly or metaphorically, Queen do indeed effectuate the transition. Meaning that Hot Space is, like, listenable. They managed to salvage some of their stronger aspects and yield to the new trends without becoming offensively boring. "

How true. Can you think of any other 70s rock bands that did it successfully?

The album '1984' opened with a keyboard instrumental, which had to be shocking to Van Halen fans. First cut after that was 'Jump', which was virtually 100% synths save the solo. Next single was 'I'll wait', which was again synth based. After Roth left the band, the first single was the keyboard heavy 'Why can't this be love', followed by the piano ballad 'Love walks in.' Those songs represent a significant sea change in the VH stylistic direction, whether they are danceable or not. rush also changed immensely from their first albums, and like Queen, a very expirimental band.

It’s understandable defending something you enjoy and are passionate about. Although I don’t agree with everything in his reviews, he makes some good and bad points. I agree with his general review of “Hot Space”. Side one of that record is a complete joke. Basically it’s a bunch of disco/funk tunes recorded with no imagination, soul or heart.

Like Journey, it took a little while, but I would hardly call Van Halen a shred of what they were 20 years ago. Same with Rush. Not the same with Genesis.

Here's what happens. The guys stop buying the albums as much, but all the girls make up the difference. Of course, the girls aren't going to become the followers the guys were, so they're out after a couple of years and it falls to pieces. Maybe two albums and that's it. The decline happens.

Here's what happens. The guys stop buying the albums as much, but all the girls make up the difference. Of course, the girls aren't going to become the followers the guys were, so they're out after a couple of years and it falls to pieces. Maybe two albums and that's it. The decline happens.

i'm sorry, i find that quite insulting, kind of implying that girls aren't the music lovers that boys are...

Only insofar as he is an extremely politically correct pseudo-intellectual, rating music according to the prestige it'll earn him, and not quality. He's an absolute moreon: the guy mistakes a trumpet for a saxophone on Lou Reed's "The Bells" for instance.

A suite is a fluent segue of a number of parts, each being in a different form, style and usually key. Originally, it referred to a very stringent combination of medieval dances, but the definition nowadays includes works like John Coltrane's "Ascension" and much of John Cage's ballet-work, with Merce Cunningham, for instance.